Development of PVOS as an organization

[dwblair]

• Click here to navigate back to the PVOS wiki home page.
• This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License

---

Background

This will provide a record of our discussions around how to evolve an organization focused on developing open source science hardware, software, and knowledge infrastructure (if that is our true focus -- still up for debate!). Among things we might consider working on doing soon:

• Writing a "charter" and / or mission statement
• Forming non-profit as well as a for-profit -- pros / cons of each
• Becoming a granting agency ourselves
• Certificate programs in various scientific techniques / calibrations
• Supporting / joining / merging with other organizations, like PLOTS
• A balance between locally and globally focused projects
• Tracking our development for the purposes of later study of our development process
• Building in metrics to this / another collaborative site in order to facilitate study of our process
• Tracking all discussions openly; saving and labeling private off-line discussions for later redaction to allow for study
• Exploring the relationship between open- and closed- source systems; how does an open source organization collaborate around a company that makes money off of patents? Or collaborate with professors and negotiate issues around IP?
• Explicate the rules and standards for open source collaboration at UMass and at other institutions, in order to educate students, faculty, staff around their rights / opportunities
• What is the relationship between the "open" and "free" cultures of software / hardware sharing?
• What sort of community/communities would we like to foster?
• How to attribute intellectual credit and monetary rewards in an open source education? What models currently exist, what are the pros and cons, what models might be possible / useful?
• What motivates the various players in the open collaboration communities -- in terms of research, publication, software and hardware development, etc?
• Transpose all of Charlie's methodology / framework into open hardware / open science?
• What would an open science hardware / software / knowledge infrastructure consultancy look like / do? Are there already models for this sort of thing?
• Business model?
• Partnerships with other organizations, local and global?
• Grant opportunities?
• Kickstarter as a granting agency, funding projects via a democratic, direct-to-the-people process, vs. e.g. goverment grants that first collect / pool tax dollars, then select an elite group to make decisions about funding priorities, influenced by national political trends (oops, might be a bit polemical)?

[megkierstead]

Official UMass Intellectual Property Policy: http://www.umass.edu/research/system/files/Intellectual_Propery_Policy_UMA.pdf

Important Points

• The University can lay claim to any intellectual property that makes "significant use" of University resources. There is a bit of ambiguity here, so being mindful of this fact is important. Resources available to the public and occasional use of office facilities and such are excluded.
• Faculty have more of an obligation to the University than other groups. They can, however, be involved with outside projects while protecting IP as long as some important steps are taken.
  • Policy on Faculty Consulting and Outside Activities: http://www.umass.edu/research/system/files/facultyconsultingpolicy_0.pdf
• Any IP that closely resembles research done at the University can cause issues (even if the IP was created in an outside project). It's important to keep documentation that demonstrates that no University resources were used.

This should be confirmed with someone with legal expertise, but I believe that open licensing circumvents a number of IP issues. Labor and services, rather than IP, are the revenue sources.

[dwblair]

Great finds!

Okay, so seems like some key points of advice for someone entering such a process (like us!) might be:

1. Start taking clear notes on the development process. Pay attention to what resources are used by whom, where. This probably isn't a bad idea in general, but can be particularly important when collaborating with universities.
2. Find the policy re: faculty consulting at the particular institution with which you want to collaborate, and make sure that you and the faculty create / use / understand guidelines that will allow for what all parties want from the collaboration (open sources relevant components, protecting the IP of other components / parties, etc)
3. Seek (free, hopefully) legal counsel in order to clarify any blurry issues.
4. Be transparent and open about what you're doing, what you've done, your operating values and principles, your mission statement, from the very beginning. This will likely prevent most conflicts / confusion / lawsuits / negative outcomes down the line.

[megkierstead]

Crowdfunding money matters:

• The SEC is currently developing rules under the JOBS act: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-04-19/crowdfunding-rules-now-up-to-sec
• Crowdfunding is subject to both fees (8-10% for Kickstarter) and taxes (this gets complicated--see below)
• In most cases, crowdfunding counts as income and is taxed as such (except for non-profit orgs). How this plays out is dependent on where the money is going (e.g., individual, LLC, corporation). See the separate discussion on types of for-profit organizations. This is likely at least 15% after deducting business expenses.
• Non-profit orgs (501(c)(3)'s) are not taxed, but come with other logistical issues. There are additional disclosure obligations to donors if they receive anything in exchange for their tax-deductible donation.
• If a contributor receives a salable product (e.g., CD, t-shirt, etc.), the "sale" is likely subject to sales tax (6.25% in MA). (Should the 6.25% be built into pledge amounts)?
• Contributor pledges can fall through (e.g. funds don't transfer because of overdrawn bank account).
• Crowdfunding campaigns will likely incur overhead expenses beyond materials. Hiring an accountant and attorney are likely necessary, for example.

[dwblair]

That's a very interesting article you linked to. Sounds like we might right now live during a brief golden era of crowdfunding before the SEC clamps down on things. Hopefully not.

Questions / Points

• Are there alternatives to Kickstarter for collecting funds from the public that don't involve such fees? E.g. Amazon payments seems to allow for money transfers without a fee (at least for now). I guess part of the appeal of Kickstarter is that there are folks who hang out on Kickstarter just to find fun projects, and Kickstarter has a lot of visibility. What other advantages does Kickstarter provide? Security, somehow? Maybe not: I think I saw that their policy is "supporter beware" ...
• This information is great. I'm seeing that one needs to build in some extra $ into the price of each product when crowdfunding it, even if one just wanted to break even in a non-profit venture.

Side note, whispered: does a crowfunding site maybe have a business incentive to downplay these hidden costs, in order to make the entire endeavor seem easy-peasy for anyone to do? If so, it might be very useful for the community to highlight some of these complications, so that artists, small business owners, non-profits, scientists, makers don't get burned.

[megkierstead]

• I think the main advantage attached to Kickstarter et al., which you nailed, is visibility. There are existing ecosystems and infrastructure that 1. make it easy for people with ideas to set up a project and receive funds and 2. provide perceived legitimacy for donors (which, as you point out, is false). I imagine one could set up their own crowdfunding site for a project using Amazon payments, but then you'd be relying on your own social network to spread the word. I'd be interested to know how most donors actually FIND a project. I wouldn't be surprised if random browsing on Kickstarter provided a minority of donations. I'm guessing most donations come from being linked on hubs of some sort.
• Yes, these sites have a strong incentive to hide these costs. They emphasize ease of transactions and existing infrastructure, which is the value they claim they currently bring to creators. There certainly is no detailed discussion of tax implications on these sites, for example. I imagine the SEC rules are going to have an effect on this aspect of these sites.

[megkierstead]

Crowdfunding fees:

• Kickstarter: 5% + 3-5% Amazon processing fee
• Indiegogo: 4% + 3% processing fee
• Rockethub: 4% + 4% processing fee

[sekjal]

Some followup from today's meeting:

Forming two groups:

1. Non-profit Pioneer Valley Open Science Institute (pvos.org): dedicated to the discourse, academic work and scholarly aspects of open science. Would coordinate events as budget permits, as well as host source code, schematics, tutorials and other educational materials.
2. For-profit PVOS.CC. Selling DIY open hardware kits and pre-assembled devices for projects hosted by the Institute, as well as hosted web services for various software packages for those who don't want to install their own. Can also sell swag like T-shirts, coffee mugs and stickers, as those things do tend to pay the bills.

I would advocate, then, that this GitHub be used for hosting the git repositories of source code offered up by the Institute. This makes all the code for all the projects readily accessible in a community-standard way.

The non-profit Institute may be able to piggyback on the hard work of PLOTS, rather than go through 501(c)3 application itself. It really depends on the particular goals of the Institute, and how well they align with PLOTS's goals.

It would be important to draft a policy statement early on about the licensing and distribution of projects the Institute works on with other groups. Something that clearly indicates the Institute leans heavily towards openness, but with the understanding that some work needs to be kept private until publication (no detailed progress updates). Work that is intended to lead to closed, proprietary or confidential products is not a good match for PVOS, and other partnerships should be sought out instead.